🚀 go-pugleaf

mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> 
> If you approach a software author (because the program itself can't talk)
> you'll almost certainly find that he is similarly willing to be paid some
> hourly rate in return for which he'll explain exactly how his program does
> what it does, so that you can go away and do what you like with that
> knowledge.

Get a life!  I challenge you to call up Ms. Programmer at Lotus Inc,
and discuss with her the finer points of lotus.c, and see where it gets
you, at any price!  If you produce a package "similar in design" to
lotus-123(tm), regardless of whether or not you sell it, they could sue
you for loss of income, because you didn't buy their copy.  Naturally,
they wouldn't, because the damages wouldn't be much more than the price
of one copy.  Do you think your proverbial plumber could sue you if you
fixed your own shower?  Hardly!  Even if you fix every one on the
block!  Anyway, enough of these analogies.  They don't serve any useful
purpose.

On some other points, there is nothing wrong with the use of "Free
Software Foundation".  It is a lot more accurate than saying "Free Mars
Bar" with every two packs of detergent.  Or, perhaps, that America is a
Free country.  If that's the case, I'll have Texas, please.  Language
(particularly English) is very inexact.  If you'd argue "Free" as in
FSF, then add the following to the verboten list;

	Easy-to-Use
	Fault-Tolerant
	Portable
	Standard Interface
	User Friendly
	Well Documented
	etc...

GNU-C is one of the best C compilers available.  It comes with source,
so if you have your own CPU architecture, or whatever, you can port
it.  If you find a bug/feature, or want to add some non-C construct
(like complex numbers), you can do that too!!  This silly argument has
been going on since the first days of FSF.  Basically, the GPL is what
it is (to quote Popeye), and if you would prefer to use a compiler from
MicroGouge, then go ahead.  If you want to use the FSF compiler, and
exploit the very considerable manhours that went into the production of
it and its libraries, then abide by the GPL.  Put up or shut up.  You
are certainly welcome to rewrite the mountains of code produced by FSF,
and offer them to the world at large under whatever terms you want.  In
fact, if you offered to freely distribute the stuff, with no copyright
whatsoever (such that other people could add their own copyrights, or
sell it as happened with Emacs in the past), then I'm sure you'd be
very popular.  However, given your whimsical concerns about the GPL,
I don't think we can expect you to give away source, now can we??
						- Der
-- 
Dermot Tynan		dtynan@kbss.bt.co.uk		Contractor-at-large

     Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow.